Final answer:
True, the First Amendment limits emotional distress claims involving speech about public figures, as parodies intended to cause distress are protected, and public figures must prove 'actual malice' in defamation cases.
Step-by-step explanation:
The First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of speech does indeed limit emotional distress claims when the outrageous conduct consists of speech about a public figure. This is evidenced by the ruling in Hustler Magazine v. Falwell, where the Supreme Court held that parodies of public figures, even those intended to cause emotional distress, are protected by the First Amendment. The actual malice standard set forth in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan requires that a public official prove that a defamatory statement was made with knowledge of its falsity or with reckless disregard for the truth in order to recover damages. Various forms of speech that may be restricted include incitement, defamation, and those that present a clear and present danger. It is true that the First Amendment limits emotional distress claims in cases involving speech about public figures.